Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Next Canon Lens

Mac Addict

Mac Addict

macrumors member
Original poster
Feb 12, 2008
78
6
Chicagoland
I have a great wide angle lens 17-40 f4L on my 40D

Next I'm looking for a good general use lens and have a couple options:

1) 24-105 f4L IS
2) 70-200 f4L IS
3) 70-200 f2.6L IS

The first two are around the same price, but the 70-200 f2.6l IS is a lot more $$ and bigger. Not sure its worth it. Any comments on the above combination would be appreciated.
 
the 24-105 is better for general use, but you already have a 17-40.. so I don't see the reason to get that one. I have a 70-200 f/4L and it is brilliant. But if you want better low light performance the f/2.8L is just as nice as the f/4L and is faster.
 
depends on your budget. 70-200 L is next you should go, either the F4L or F2.8L

I choose the F4L myself due to the fact of the weight and performance, the F4L get almost the same qualify but the price is almost 600 Less

I also have the 17-40L myself too
 
I bought the 70-200 f/4 L a few weeks back and it's not been of my camera since. A fantastic lens and the images are crystal clear, and the none IS version is not too heavy and gives no problems to carry around.
 
Thanks for the feedback, I had my mind set on the 70-200. The 2.6L comes with a tripod ring. Does the lens have to be supported when used on a tripod?
 
Not to be picky, but it's f/2.8 not f/2.6. At any rate, I echo others in voting for EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. It is considerably cheaper and more portable than f/2.8L counterpart, and as a bonus, it uses superior optics (although f/2.8L is no slouch) and image stabilizer.

You might also want to consider getting one or two prime lenses, particularly if you need to shoot flash free under limited light.
 
Mac Addict said:
I have a great wide angle lens 17-40 f4L on my 40D

Next I'm looking for a good general use lens and have a couple options:

1) 24-105 f4L IS
2) 70-200 f4L IS
3) 70-200 f2.6L IS

The first two are around the same price, but the 70-200 f2.6l IS is a lot more $$ and bigger. Not sure its worth it. Any comments on the above combination would be appreciated.
Click to expand...


OK here is what I would do.....

If money were an object ..... Canon EOS 70-200 f/2.8 L

If money were no object ..... Canon EOS 70-200 f/2.8 L IS

Personally I just ordered the 2.8L IS model. Previously I owned the 4.0 L, and found though it was 'faster' I would have been better off with the 2.8.

Go for SPEED - the 2.8 is available with and without the IS.

2.8L average retail $1,150

2.8L IS average retail $1,700

I blew the bank account in getting the 2.8L IS, but I am tired of buying one lens and wishing I bout another.

In the end, my camera bag will have a Canon EOS 5D, 17-40 f4 L, 70-200 f2.8 L IS ... I have some other special purpose lenses, but they are not carried around with me on a daily basis.

This will leave a gap between 40mm and 70mm, but if you get the 24-105 you will overlap between 24mm to 70mm, and be short on the long end.

This site has good info on the 70-200 lenses.

http://photo.net/equipment/canon/70-200

If you're going backpacking with a tripod, save your back and get the 70-200/4L. For studio portraits that will be lit by electronic flash, get the 70-200/2.8L (non-stabilized). For all-around high-performance, you definitely want the IS version of the 70-200/2.8L.
Click to expand...
 
harcosparky said:
I blew the bank account in getting the 2.8L IS, but I am tired of buying one lens and wishing I bout another.

In the end, my camera bag will have a Canon EOS 5D, 17-40 f4 L, 70-200 f2.8 L IS ... I have some other special purpose lenses, but they are not carried around with me on a daily basis.

This will leave a gap between 40mm and 70mm, but if you get the 24-105 you will overlap between 24mm to 70mm, and be short on the long end.

This site has good info on the 70-200 lenses.

http://photo.net/equipment/canon/70-200
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. Personally I'd spend the extra to get the lens I want. If I have to save for a couple more months so be it. Thanks ;)
 
Mac Addict said:
Thanks for the feedback, I had my mind set on the 70-200. The 2.8L comes with a tripod ring. Does the lens have to be supported when used on a tripod?
Click to expand...

The 2.8 is quite heavy so using the tripod ring would take a strain off the lens mount. The f/4 is light so the ring is not really needed (hence why canon don't include it).

Hand holding the 70-200 isn't an issue, I hold my 300mm most of the time. Correct body position will help you hold any lens (maybe the 600/800/1200 is pushing it a bit!).

To reiterate Sparkys point you will have a gap between 40-70, Though you could opt for a 24-105 and 70-200 f/4 non IS for the price of the 70-200 f/2.8. f/2.8 is very nice to have (like IS) but not all that import to be honest. O.k. both will help in low light, but if you need to slow the shutter down to get a shot you'd better hope that the subject is also as slow to avoid blur.
 
Mac Addict said:
Thanks for the feedback, I had my mind set on the 70-200. The 2.6L comes with a tripod ring. Does the lens have to be supported when used on a tripod?
Click to expand...

Mount the lens to the tripod and the camera body to the lens.

I think you will find that a lens with a tripod mount ring will be fairly balanced at the ring with the camera attached.

I have seen guys mount the camera to the tripod and use a monopod under the lens, also I have seen some tripods in use that had a support come up from one leg to the lens.

Go look at an old NFL football game .... pay attention to the photographers on the sidelines. They have large fast lenses and use monopods. Monopods give them the ability to 'snatch and run' if a play heads in their direction, though I have seen some photographers take a hit! :eek:

I used to have a SIGMA 50-500mm lens ..... that was a beast! I beleive the lens alone weighed almost 5 pounds. I tried using it handheld ... results were so-so, but I know if it had been an IS lens the results would have been better. I bought it at an auction with a bunch of other Canon camera stuff. Paid $450 for the lot, and sold the beast for $700. So I ended up getting the vintage Canon camera gear less than free.
 
My sig speaks for my bias...then again very budget heavy decision but based upon several buy, still want, ebay and buy again cycles. Save up and get what you really want.
 
Out of interest, do you have any sample images with the 17-40mm lens? I'm thinking of getting one. I've been told I should buy Canon no matter how good the Sigma lenses are.

I am only a student though and I have to balance what I would like with what I should realistically get, my lecturer said I should think long term and get the Canon gear...
 
I have the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS and it is very easily hand-held. Period.

Going with a 17-40mm, 50mm f/1.8, and 70-200mm -- you would have an awesome arsenal.
 
CrackedButter said:
I've been told I should buy Canon no matter how good the Sigma lenses are.

I am only a student though and I have to balance what I would like with what I should realistically get, my lecturer said I should think long term and get the Canon gear...
Click to expand...

I've never owned a SIGMA for myself, I did buy one with the intent of reselling it.

The only non-Canon lens in my arsenal is a Tamron SP AF180mm MACRO. I bought it strictly for Macro work, shooting mostly jewelry using a tripod and macro lights. It is an excellent Macro lens, and does well as a fixed 180mm f3.5 lens.

Other than that it is CANON only for me.
 
Mac Addict said:
CrackedButter said:
Unless you have the cast iron grip of a robot i would say yes, i take it you haven't tried hand holding a camera at 200?
Click to expand...
You're right I haven't, I've seen its over 3lbs and around 8" long.
Click to expand...
I haven't hit the gym in years and I can hand hold the 70-200 2.8 IS. It does get heavy at the end of the day but it's perfectly doable.

I would hesitate without IS but you've listed the IS versions in your original post so I don't think there will be an issue.

But as someone else pointed out, the 70-200 lenses aren't exactly general purpose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back